Re: [BNW] Improving Powers

[whytcrow@io.com]

I'm going to cut out the bits where I'm agreed with by Guide Matt, 
except to add:
 
> (thanks
>to Champions and GURPS)

I played GURPS Supers once (well, long enough to make a char).  After 
I saw the "You will play 300 point chars, but 100 points of that is 
Unusual Background,"  I went huh?  Unusual?  We're all playing 
superheros!  What's so Unusual about that?  Ack...my brain hurt over 
the question of why didn't we just play *200* pt supers and ignore 
that UB thing, and I never went back.

> not just improving our skill with it or adding a
>trick.  Of course, to me the most interesting thing is that V&V, one of the
>earliest superhero games and in my opinion one of the most enjoyable of all
>RPGs to play in any genre, did not really allow power improvement via
>intensity increases.  The improvements in V&V were more along the lines of
>BNW ... sort of the "skill/trick" mechanic although not exactly the same.
>So, I think that systems that are "point-based" have given rise to this
>belief that the intensity of superpowers should be able to change with
>experience.  So, this gives support for her point that a desire to improve
>power intensities is because we are comparing BNW to these other
>"point-based" superhero games that allow this.

I'm actually playing in a (variant) V&V game now.  I have explained 
tricks as power stunts many times.  I was even thinking of stealing 
some aspects of how supers get tricks from how we can get new power 
stunts.  BNW is superior in every way to the V&V rules, IMO, but 
there are tidbits I ccan borrow.  (although interestingly enough the 
gm plans on using Glory Days for information for our WWII era V&V 
campaign)

>However, I don't think it's that simple.  Comic books are also to blame.

That's true.  However, I feel that while simulating comic books is a 
good thing, one must always remember that comic books are written 
without consistent rules, by many different authors over time, and 
thus applying logic is like trying to logicize Star Trek.  (Assume 
logicize is a word).

Now, once again, if someone feels they want to more simulate comic 
books more closely, they should feel free to do so in whatever manner 
they see fit.  (Standard disclaimer so people don't feel I'm 
attacking them).

I personally don't think that much of the improvements chars make to 
their powers within comic books are really b/c they improved--I think 
it is more the writers fitting reader demand, variations in how 
things are presented, or tricks (extra damage, extra range, etc). 
But that's my opinion.

>I know in the Marvel game
>the optic blast started out as Remarkable (by started out I mean that this
>was it's level in X-Men #1 when he began as a teenaged hero) and, last I
>checked, is currently Amazing (that's two big power level jumps for those of
>you who are not familiar with the game ... it almost doubled in intensity at
>least as far as points of damage goes).

I'm always dubious about literary chars written up in game 
supplements, again b/c it is hard to take something someone 
wrote--where any powers are literary devices--and set consistent 
rules to it.  As someone who has run a rpg based on a book series for 
2 1/2 years (in which only one new book has come out), trust me. 
Authors don't think about rpg design when they write, even if they 
are gamers.

That having been said, if you want to model something, you need to 
take into account even the stuff that's obviously an author screwup. 
That means if Cyclops does something *truly* powerful in one issue, 
you can't just wave your hand at it when you are tryign to model him 
as an rpg char.  It is maddening, I tell you.

> But, her point about BNW not being a
>four-color comic book universe is also important and right on as well ... I
>wish I could get a lot of my players to realize this!  BNW is not the X-Men!
>It's much more like the Wildcards universe, as many of you have mentioned.

I think the only thing you can do is to keep repeating it until they 
listen.  The same way you can't run Star Trek with players who refuse 
to listen to the fact that it isn't hard science.  Just like you 
wouldn't be expected to turn a world like Glen Cook's Black Company 
series into a DnD campaign, you shouldn't have to turn BNW into 
4-color supers.

>By the way, if you haven't read the first 6 books in the series, you really
>should.  They're GREEEAAATTTT!  Of course, it's interesting that even in the
>Wildcards universe, power intensities improved.

I actually didn't like them, although I read the first one.  But 
that's just me.  I think they do make a better analogy then Xmen, 
however.

>The Great and Powerful
>Turtle's telekinesis significantly improved, and Golden Boy's force field and
>strength also significantly improved.  So, I guess I'm saying that there is a
>lot of "literary" support for the improvement of power intensities as well,
>not just RPG history.

It depends on what you want to model.  There are comics where the 
chars never get any more powerful without a major 
transformation--probably as many where the chars do.  People tend to 
forget that superhero comics really cover a wide range of subgenres. 
Batman and Superman are two completely different power levels.  Dark 
Knight Batman is different from other iterations of Batman, both in 
tone and effect.  Xmen has similar variations depending on when we're 
talking about.

>I think another reason that people want to improve the intensity of powers is
>to make the characters with the same packages look different from one
>another.  The "oh, he's a Blaster and his energy blast is the same power
>level as mine and every other Blaster's energy blast on the planet" is a bit
>humbling and boring, I think.  You just start to feel like your character is
>not so special anymore <laugh>.

Maybe that's part of the point... (I say that semi-seriously)

That's where tricks come in.  And also, BNW (as I interpert it) isnt' 
about the powers.  It's about the people who have the powers.  When 
someone chooses to use her powers is more important than whether or 
not any other Blaster does the same thing.

Another thing to consider is that if these powers come from the same 
source, maybe they do always express themselves in teh same way. 
Which is just a random thought on my part.

>I personally think that "official" power intensity improvements will never
>occur in BNW sourcebooks for two reasons.  First, Jennifer is right ... it
>doesn't fit the world concept.

Yeppers.  And that's one reason why I'm so baffled when people want 
to have a system for it.  If it doesn't fit the world, why have it? 
Of course, if you aren't playing strictly by the world, that's 
fine--fit your increases however you like, and we can discuss ways to 
do that, based on how you've changed the world.

>However, I'm in a "Sean from Survivor" mood now (meaning I'm feeling
>wishy-washy and am going to play both sides of the fence).  I am going to
>disagree with her point 3, that powers in BNW are supposed to improve through
>tricks and skills.

I don't see how you can disagree, since the only way the mechanics 
allow any "depth" to the powers is through Tricks and Skills.

Well, as you point out, there is Att increase on some powers:

> If power packages are supposed to be improved solely through tricks
>and skill, then there would be a 5d6 limit on trait scores that powers work
>off of, like the Goliath's Strength, the Telekinetic's Smarts, the Snuffer's
>Spirit, etc.
>
>  I'm not trying to be a rules lawyer
>here, I'm trying to point out that if you do not allow power intensities to
>improve, some power packages get screwed and some do not.

Ok, this is where you poke at one of my gaming pet peeves, so you 
should probably take anything i say from this point as from being on 
a soapbox, with a grain of salt, and the knowledge that I mean to 
offend no one.

This is a strawman, IMO.  The only way a package "gets screwed" is if 
we are trying to compare game balance, which again IMO is a holy 
grail that we should stop galloping after blindly.  Game balance is a 
myth--we can try very hard to set things up to be balanced, but you 
never know what skills, powers, traits, etc are going to be 
important.

So a Goliath can raise his Strength?  He does so at the disadvantage 
of not being able to buy more tricks or skills.  That's a lot of xp 
to dump into one thing.  Whereas the Blaster has bought a ton of 
diversity with her points.

> The Goliath's resistance to attacks improves, but the
>Blaster's attack intensity cannot keep up with the Goliath's resistance
>improvement?  To quote Hollywood, "that just don't seem right."

There are tricks the BLaster can use...I do understand this point 
though.  Although I am not sure it is the major issue made of it, I 
do admit there may be cause for concern...and yet, I still think the 
Blaster can do other things to help.  Raise the stat used to hit 
better, do more damage and/or knockback, etc...that does enhance the 
ability.

Another thought is that it makes sense for the Goliath to lift 
weights (cars) to gain in strength.  What exactly is the Blaster 
exercising to become a stronger Blaster?

>Not only that, I think it's an easy problem to fix.  All you really have to
>do is allow packages like the Blaster to improve the intensity of their
>energy blast or similar powers as if they were a trait.  The energy blast has
>5d6 dice, so if the player wants her character to have a 6d6+10 energy blast,
>she has to pay 18 points for it, just as the player with the Goliath
>character has to pay 18 points to improve her character's Strength score to
>6d6+5.

That's a way of doing it that would work, yes.

Another thought is to tie the Blaster's damage to a particular Stat 
as well.  Do it either based straight off the attribute or something 
like "2d6 + Speed dice." Depending on what you thought fair.

>That said ... I don't allow power improvements as I have outlined in my game,
>I stick to the rules <smile>.

I won't allow power increase myself.  I don't mind there being house 
rules somewhere.  If the alreayd present sites don't want to list 
this possibitities, when I get to doign my own site I'll put them up.

>After all that I said above, why do I not allow power intensity improvements?
> I certainly seem to be in favor of them.  I don't allow it for precisely the
>reasons that Jennifer outlined ... it doesn't really fit with the game world.
> And, more importantly, I'm scared to death that when the Alpha rules do come
>out, I'm going to be screwed if I allow these types of improvements.

That is defaintely a concern.  One doesn't want to knowingly prevent 
the use of future supplements--especially in ways that would make you 
have to come up with entire rules sets on your own.  ;)

>Sorry this response was so long, but I do think it is important and I have,
>no kidding, put a lot of thought into it.  But all this is just my opinion,
>obviously.  If I was going to allow power intensity increases, I would just
>treat the power like a trait score, as I said before, and have at it.

There is no point in holding an opinion if you cannot debate it.  You 
have raised issues that I haven't thought of, although like you I 
still am in favor of leaving the rules as is.

Thanks for the insightful discussion!

Jennifer

The White Crow
FUDGE Deryni and the Penn Ar Mor Ars Magica Saga:
http://www.io.com/~whytcrow/rpg.html
"Your destruction is the will of the gods, and we are their 
instrument."  -- Halo